Rename "master" branches?

[tarcieri]

In the wake of recent events, several developers have chosen to rename the "master" branches on their projects, and GitHub has announced they will be changing the default branch name as well (although they haven't announced to what). It seems like "main", "develop", and "trunk" are all popular options.

Should we consider doing the same?

One problem with renaming branches is it breaks all existing links to files within repositories, however it appears that can be worked around via the use of git symrefs which allow the old name to point to the new name:

https://twitter.com/mountain_ghosts/status/1274060788580388868

[tarcieri]

To answer my own question: if we were to do this, since it's a large invasive change across multiple repositories, I think it's worth waiting to see what GitHub does, and circle back after they announce what the new default branch name will be.

[newpavlov]

Honestly, I am strongly against it. In the first place I don't think that renaming master/slave or whitelist/blacklist does anything to solve issues with racial discrimination or structural problems in USA (e.g. income inequality or availability of education). There are far better places to show solidarity (especially for USA citizens) and which arguably will have a bigger impact in the long run. And I don't really think that such words offend many people in practice (well, for sufficiently large crowds you can find those who could be offended by anything, so inevitably there always will be some) and that the main reason behind the wave of renamings is mostly an attempt by corporations to get some cheap PR in the wake of the recent events.

And even before that, git's "master" has nothing to do with slavery or skin color (btw same goes for whitelist/blacklist), AFAIK it originated from "master-record" used in audio production. Here is an analogy: should my master degree also get renamed just because it may offend some people?

[Evrey]

AFAIK it originated from "master-record" used in audio production

It did not. Don't remember the full details, but it has been quoted a lot here and there. Predecessor of Git was centralised iirc. But that doesn't invalidate the point you're making.

[SimonImbrogno]

Honestly, I am strongly against it.... "master" has nothing to do with slavery or skin color (btw same goes for whitelist/blacklist)

I second this sentiment. This change, while well meaning, seems to be knowingly doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

"Master", when used in most contexts ( including this one ), is not invoking the meaning of a "master - slave" relationship. For someone to claim that it does, and then to further claim that it specifically invokes the meaning in a negative or racially disparaging sense is either outright disingenuous or, at best, a significant misunderstanding of how language works.

If someone is under a genuine misapprehension that a word is being used in a disparaging sense, then the respectful thing to do is to correct the misapprehension and move forward. To act on a claim of this sort when it is knowingly rooted in a mistake would only serve to leave the person with a mistaken belief, and erode one's ability to effectively act on legitimate concerns in the future.

I do not tolerate unjust discrimination, nor would I support using language that disparages others 🤷 This is neither.

[tarcieri]

FYI, GitHub has renamed the default branch to "main":

https://github.blog/changelog/2020-10-01-the-default-branch-for-newly-created-repositories-is-now-main/

[webmaster128]

GitHub now makes it incredibly easy to rename existing branches and convenient to work with, giving you nice redirects and such things. E.g. https://github.com/CosmWasm/cosmwasm/tree/master/contracts.